Capacity development strategies

Fragile states and capacity development

Fragile states are different – their context is key in capacity development.

There are four types of fragile states, categorized by their lack of capacity and political will, and their risk of conflict. These are states in a situation of deterioration, arrested development, post-conflict transition and early recovery. A key issue is whether these types of fragile states are qualitatively different from other developing countries. If so, what support strategies are most likely to be efficient?  Brinkerhoff (2007) sees the capacity dimension as crucial because fragile states suffer from chronically weak basic security, service delivery, economic opportunities and legitimacy. As a consequence, they may not respond well to traditional aid strategies. According to World Bank research (2002), the persisting patterns of conflict and the high expectations for a ‘peace dividend’ make capacity development a complex, non-linear and time-consuming process. This implies a different and more important role for development partners, since fragile states may not have the capacity to engage in a process based on national ownership.

  • Development partners must become more deeply involved in fragile states.
    • One of the main criticisms regarding donor action is linked to the limited human and material resources that have been devoted to fragile states in the past. According to the Department for International Development (DFID, 2005), since the mid-1990s, donors have focused on rewarding countries with relatively effective governments and stable macroeconomic policies. Thus attention devoted to fragile states has been limited, and the aid provided has been characterized as volatile, fragmented and poorly coordinated. Aid has generally been delivered too late and reduced too early, and fragile states have not been able to absorb the aid provided by development partners. The demands for immediate results, such as the immediate objective of reducing the risk of conflict in post-conflict situations, make many donors emphasize support for quantifiable, short-term outcomes. Critics recognize the difficulties inherent in developing capacity in these countries, but emphasize the importance of a long-term transition process rooted in capacity development.
  • The challenge: how to  balance the trade-off between short-term and long-term development partner interventions.
    • Immediate needs such as basic services and security must be privileged, but without compromising long-term institutional strengthening by replacing or substituting rather than developing capacities. The tendency of donors to rely on non-state service provision, for example, does not contribute to developing the capacity of public service provision in the long run. And measures taken to establish immediate security and stability in a country do not build civil society’s capacity to compromise and avoid future conflict. Capacity development processes must be initiated parallel with reconstruction, and must focus on urgent issues such as reducing fragility by privileging key aspects of state performance.
  • Capacity development: the need for context and adaptation to the existing capacity level.
    • Many fragile states have a history of internal conflict, making it difficult to cooperate, trust and compromise. Fragility and conflict can easily reverse positive development processes, making it necessary for donors to take into consideration the existence of polarized ethnic, religious or class-based groups. Residual capacity is another context-specific issue that may be assessed by donors. Brinkerhoff (2007) emphasizes the potential role for diasporas in capacity assessments and country context analyses. One strategy may be to bypass weak government capacity and create temporary capacity through diasporas or local aid management agencies. Capacity and authority can then be transferred gradually to public institutions. When political will and capacity are present, the focus should be on core state capacity, such as financial management, basic services and security (OECD, 2006). Rose and Greeley (2006) give the example of Afghanistan, where the demonstration of political will, despite major challenges to the current leadership, has resulted in much donor attention. When political will is lacking, donors are advised to focus on non-state actors, although parallel service delivery systems should be avoided: “Donors should cooperate with local governments on policy, resource allocation, and service planning, even when the majority of services are delivered by non-state providers” (Brinkerhoff, 2007, p. 3).